Carter v. Mitchell’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate ·

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Carter also has not, in these two grounds for relief, expanded the scope of his claims from what he presented to the state courts. “To fairly present a claim to a state court a petitioner must assert both the legal and factual basis for his or her claim.” Williams, 460 F.3d at 806; see Clinkscale, 375 F.3d at 437. In order to satisfy this requirement, and avoid a procedural default, the petitioner’s federal habeas petition must be based on the same theory presented in state court and cannot be based on a wholly separate or distinct theory. Wong v. Money, 142 F.3d 313 , 322 (6th Cir.1998). For example, in Wong, one of the grounds the petitioner asserted in support of her petition for habeas relief was based on allegations that she had received constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel. Id. at 319 . In the state court proceedings Wong had alleged only that counsel’s performance was deficient for failing to pursue an insanity defense. Id. at 319 . However, in federal court, Wong additionally alleged that counsel was constitutionally ineffective for neglecting to undertake additional investigation into whether an alternate expert might have concluded that she was legally insane. Id. at 321 . This Court held that the portion of the claim based on not undertaking a complete investigation was procedurally defaulted because Wong had not presented it to the state courts. Id. at 322 ; accord Williams [v. Bagley], 380 F.3d [932] at 968 [ (6th Cir.2004) ] (holding that petitione”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Carter v. Mitchell

2. “Carter properly preserved the claims based on ineffective assistance of trial counsel during the mitigation stage raised in his twenty-eighth and twenty-ninth grounds for relief. Therefore, we remand for the district court to determine in the first instance whether Carter is entitled to the writ based on his counsel’s performance at the mitigation stage of the proceedings.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Carter v. Mitchell

3. “Carter did not procedurally default his twenty-eighth or twenty-ninth grounds for relief. Therefore, we ... REMAND for the district court to consider whether Carter is entitled to a writ of habeas corpus based on counsel’s performance at the penalty phase of trial or the trial court’s exclusion of evidence at the mitigation phase.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Carter v. Mitchell